The East - I decided to go ahead and to annotation on the fictional movie, The East, because I was going to watch it anyway and it did have a lot of systems thinking involved that, even though its based on fictional events, still shows the complexity of sustainability problems, many of which are examples that are real, and the movie does cover some solutions.
1. Title, director and release year?
The East, by Zal Batmanglij, released May 31, 2013
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
Very quick summary
This is about an eco-terrorist group, called The East, that are an "anarchist and terrorist group" comprised of environmental activists that perform "jams" on major corporations in order to find justice and create change for environmental regulation and the people involved. "Jams" have a degree of shock and violence, and are meant to expose the people responsible for pollution and other actions that are unsustainable and cause harm. The East specifically targets big companies' CEOs and Board Committees, the worst polluters that have caused harm and even death to many. The movie follows an agent/recruit, that works for a private elite intelligence and security firm, as she infiltrates The East and eventually turns because she is awakened to their cause. However, at the end of the movie, she decides not to hand over the list of her firm's recruits to the leading man in The East group because she doesn't agree with the man's ethics and how he was going to use the list. The east activist's plan was to expose the agents working for the intelligence firm, exposing them and putting their lives in great danger. Instead, she holds onto the list and speaks to the other recruits one by one, convincing them to spy on the companies they were placed to guard. Then when the time is right, these turned recruits turn over information to the government, EPA, DEC, and other regulatory bodies in order to stop the unsustainable practices and hold the business and CEO's accountable.
The main point of the movie seems to be to make the audience realize that we don't always know who the "bad guys" are, and that in every group there are different shades of the type of people that are there. Everyone in The East seemed to have a different shade of ethics they considered, some drew lines not to cross sooner in different situations than others. Once Sarah, the intelligence agent working for the private elite security firm, once she became a part of the group and actually lived among them, she had a hard time grappling with which side was right and which was wrong. I think the point of the movie is to show the hypocrisy of labeling The East an anarchist and terrorist group when they were the ones fighting for the rights on the people and the major corporations they were targeting were the ones that polluted the environment or cut some other corner in their industry that resulted in health hazards and other dangers for people in society. Who is the real monster? What actions are considered too extreme when fighting for human rights to a healthy environment?
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The film makes you question who the "bad guys" are by showing how the East lives, how we can relate to them, and what their reasons and motivations were. For example, there was a man in the group, "Doc", who used to be a physician. He was in the group because he prescribed medicine to himself and to his sister that gradually wore away at their brains, and his sister's psyche. She couldn't recognize herself in the mirror anymore, and eventually committed suicide. They weren't the only ones with these horrific side effects, and it turned out that the pharmaceutical company skewed research results, cut corners, ignored many accounts from the public on these terrifying issues with the drug, and went ahead and approved it for the market.
Another example was when one of the girls in the group planned a "jam" to target her father's company that was polluting the rivers with their toxic wastes every morning around 2am. When they were meeting about how to carry out this jam they watched youtube videos of a mother giving her 2 boys a bath, and while she was doing so she had a timer right there that she paid close attention to. This was because the water in their community had been poisoning the environment and it's citizens, and they couldn't easily move because nobody wants to buy a house in a chemical hotspot, the market value is completely degraded. The youngest boy in the video had passed away
This very closely resembles the issues that many communities surrounding fracking sites are dealing with. They have no access to safe clean water and are being poisoned by their environment. This also reminds me a lot of the aftermath of the chemical catastrophe in Bhopal. Even the filming techniques to make an emotional appeal are the same, they let you get to know some of the victims and really understand their hardships, and then state that after a certain time one of them died. That was specifically done in the Bhopal film that was shown at RPI, and I remember not being the only one in the audience holding back tears.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The East isn't just concerned with environmental issues, but with sustainability issues in general, including hazardous antibiotics okayed by the pharmaceutical industry as well as a company that was polluting a town's main water supply. The principle they seem to live by is to point out the mishaps in the system through publicly posting the "jams", and to reduce the amount of waste that is created by this broken system.
Political? Legal?
Since The East has been labeled an eco-terrorist and anarchist group, it is illegal to help them or associate with them. The feds try to impersonate them in order to infiltrate their groups and find them, prevent them from carrying out more "jams". I think it's a little strange that it got that far, The East being declared so dangerous and such an enemy, because it didn't seem that they physically hurt anyone, until it came to the one girl's father and co-worker. The rest of the time it reminded me more of Yes Men pranks, like with the drugging of the pharmaceutical company's party. The activists only gave the dosage that was legally safe, so if the pharmaceutical company is right, then they should have been perfectly fine. Now, it was still illegal to give them drugs not prescribed to them, etc. But the hostility that already exists towards the group made me wonder if government was bribed by industry to treat and label them that way. This could have a widespread effect on the groups that work for environmental regulation and citizens' rights, because now they are socially and culturally associated with The East, and membership would likely decrease.
Economic?
When communities become chemical and toxic hotspots, not only does it effect the citizens' health because they don't have a safe environment or drinking water, but it also affects their economic situation. If you become very ill you have to take sick days or go for extra doctors visits, and that's money not made and more expenses. Then, after a certain time, once some of the families do realize they have to move for the sake of their lives, it's hard because the realty value has been degraded. Nobody wants to move to an area known as a chemical and toxic hotspot.
Technological?
In order for an environmental activist group like this to work you need an eclectic group of members for it to work. The group would need someone with hacking skills in order to keep their location and identity secure when posting videos of jams on the internet, they would all liekly need to be good actors to impersonate and infiltrate corporate groups, medical knowledge in case anyone gets hurt, chemistry background and lab skills in order to test for chemicals in the environment... They would need to be a mix of citizens scientists, computer geeks, and spies all with an environmental ethical conscience.
Media and Informational?
Environmental groups have to be concerned with their public image the same as business and government. I found it really interesting that the group was called "The East", and I wondered if it was trying to draw on the historical trend that if you want to look at the progressive and sustainable practices, then you look to the North East region of the US. I learned later in the film that the name was chosen because you look to the east for the rising sun, "we are your wake up call". That seems fitting.
I know from my own experience talking with Audubon International that the name of your group can influence the group's success and be a source for controversy. Audubon International is an environmental education organization that's purpose is to spread and teach sustainable and natural resource management, they are NOT the Audubon Society, which is dedicated to the conservation of birds and their habitats. The International was originally a chapter of the Society, but then reopened it's own chapter as its own organization, and the 2 groups are completely separate. But this causes a lot of confusion for the public, and has been used against the International for being a way to piggy-back off of the Society's name, this is bad publicity and can hurt an organization's or group's cause.
Organizational?
The East is VERY secretive, even the people in the East don't know the other members, and don't have an immediate code or way of verifying it either. The East activists are even being impersonated by the feds in hopes to be infiltrated.
The East carries out seemingly strange social activities, such as bathing one another as a group in the river, playing a weird twist on spin the bottle, eating meals together, dancing... I thought it was just how they happened to spend their downtime, but these activities also act to strengthen their bonds and reinforce a member's loyalty to the group, making it less likely that one would desert or rat on them.
Educational?
At one point in the movie, The East group's house where they were located was raided by the FBI. Later the head of the intelligence firm was talking to Sarah, the turncoat to the East, and mention that the only thing the FBI didn't understand was why the East group chose to dumpster-dive for their food? Why not grow your own organic garden? The agent's responded they they chose to do so on principle, the food wasn't garbage even though it may be in the garbage, it still has value. She said that there were signs that the system was broken was everywhere, and that was just one of them. "I should know, I've been having 3 square meals a day on it."
At this point the agent was speaking very passionately and was then suspected of getting too close to her subject and turning. But she was absolutely right, the system is broken, and the general public doesn't see it because they are deceived with thoughts of economic growth. The public doesn't see it, I think, mainly because they don't know how society is really ran in the first place. They don't know how our food is produced or what happens to garbage when it is taken away. The is a very large educational gap on the culture of our society, and it should be taught in schools.
Behavioral? Cultural?
Ethics - "You know how they say 2 wrongs don't make a right? Well I'd say they've never been wronged before." An East activist is rationalizing her decisions for one of the jams, and this is a sign that on some level it doesn't sit right with her. There are dissenting opinions among the East as to the ethics and morals that the group is following and how it should guide them with their actions.
While The East is doing a jam on a corporation that has been contaminating the river with their toxic chemicals, one of the activists mentions some behavioral issues that can be applied to understanding why sustainable practices haven't become the norm. She mentions that the Board of the company makes a living off of poisoning the river that feeds the local town, but that since the CEOs are distant in their gated communities and separate realities they live in, they don't see or experience the effects and can't empathize with the victims of their pollution.
This effect of distancing I have seen throughout my studies on sustainability. The wealthier one becomes, the more distant person's life can now be from others, the less likely they are to giving to charity. Cultures that speak futured languages have to grammatically distance the future from the present, and make poor decision making for the long term that affects the environment, health, savings, and more.
Ecological?
The East chose to live off of food scavenged from dumpster diving, instead of growing their own because they wanted to live off of the waste that the system creates.
One of the corporations was targeted for a jam because it was poisoning the local main water supply with toxic chemicals, poisoning and even killing the local citizens.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The whole concept of an elite private intelligence and security firm that is for hire by the major corporations in the world unsettles me because such a thing probably exists, and I would think it could very easily become it's own armed force, like an industrial spy network or army. It gives me the creeps.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The media in the movie seemed very aware of eco-terrorism, as though it were prevalent. Companies with guards are fully aware and take brutal force against them. I am not too sure that the media will ever, or in my lifetime, cover stories on eco-terrorist groups and their actions because I feel like the public at large isn't very aware of them and it would work against the industry's agenda to give them so much publicity.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I think this film will be watched by people in the environmental and sustainability fields, because honestly we're probably a bit tired of documentaries so this is a nice change.
The movie could also grab the attention of people who aren't particularly familiar with environmental issues because of the actors they included in the film, which I really like and think was a resource to tap into that isn't thought of enough. President Obama and VP Biden called upon famous actors recently to make a educational commercial on issues of sexual harassment, including Danial Craig, Steve Carell, and Seth Myers. When the White House called them and asked for this favor, they immediately asked what they could do, and I feel like actors in general would leap at the opportunity to do something good for society when called upon, and it's not done often enough.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
It would have been kind of neat at the end of the film to explain what inspired them to write this story line, and if any of it came from historical and real life events, people, organizations, etc. It would be nice to see if they relied on any facts and what those were. But besides that, it's a movie!
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The movie doesn't outright suggest to take actions because it's a movie and not a film or documentary. However, the movie is filled with actions taken by activists to bring attention and knowledge of issues forward to the public. These were called "jams" in the film, and it was a stunt that they would make publicly known. With the corporation that was dumping their chemical toxic waste into the river, they brought the heads of the company to the river when the flood gates to the river were about to open letting out the chemicals. Their plan was to ask them to get in the river and when they refused get a recording of them admitting to the pollution and toxic dumping. They then would post this online for everyone to see so that the right people in the community could use it as evidence and a line of inquiry so the pollution would get regulated by the government and stop poisoning the town's water supply.
The overall message of the films subliminally asks you to question how society is and who the "bad guys" truly are. It holds up a mirror and makes you think conscientiously about your ethics and the environment, the impact your way of life has, and more.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
This is how I got my idea for the "Go Fix It" presentation to redefine eco-terrorist, because the hypocrisy in this film was so obvious.
Sustainability Problems
The East - I decided to go ahead and to annotation on the fictional movie, The East, because I was going to watch it anyway and it did have a lot of systems thinking involved that, even though its based on fictional events, still shows the complexity of sustainability problems, many of which are examples that are real, and the movie does cover some solutions.
1. Title, director and release year?
- The East, by Zal Batmanglij, released May 31, 2013
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political? Legal?
Economic?
Technological?
Media and Informational?
Organizational?
Educational?
Behavioral? Cultural?
Ecological?
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)